Jonathan Kong, Kelly Trinh, Kathrine Hammill, Carla Chia-Ming Chen
{"title":"并非所有的虚弱评估都一样:基于电子健康数据的虚弱评估在评估养老院老人时的可比性。","authors":"Jonathan Kong, Kelly Trinh, Kathrine Hammill, Carla Chia-Ming Chen","doi":"10.1177/10998004241254459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> To evaluate the comparability of frailty assessment tools - the electronic frailty index (eFI), retrospective electronic frailty index (reFI), and clinical frailty scale (CFS) - in older residents of care facilities. <b>Methods:</b> Data from 813 individuals aged 65 or older, with frailty and co-morbidities, collected between 2022 and 2023, were analysed using various statistical methods. <b>Results:</b> The results showed significant differences in frailty classification among the tools: 78.3% were identified as moderately to severely frail by eFI, 59.6% by reFI, and 92.1% by CFS. Statistical tests confirmed significant differences (<i>p</i> < .05) in their assessments, indicating variability in measurement methods. <b>Discussion:</b> This study advances the understanding of frailty assessment within aged-care settings, highlighting the differences in the efficacy of these assessment tools. It underscores the challenges in frailty assessments and emphasizes the need for continuous refinement of assessment methods to address the diverse facets of frailty in aged care.</p>","PeriodicalId":93901,"journal":{"name":"Biological research for nursing","volume":" ","pages":"526-536"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11439236/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Not All Frailty Assessments Are Created Equal: Comparability of Electronic Health Data-Based Frailty Assessments in Assessing Older People in Residential Care.\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Kong, Kelly Trinh, Kathrine Hammill, Carla Chia-Ming Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10998004241254459\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> To evaluate the comparability of frailty assessment tools - the electronic frailty index (eFI), retrospective electronic frailty index (reFI), and clinical frailty scale (CFS) - in older residents of care facilities. <b>Methods:</b> Data from 813 individuals aged 65 or older, with frailty and co-morbidities, collected between 2022 and 2023, were analysed using various statistical methods. <b>Results:</b> The results showed significant differences in frailty classification among the tools: 78.3% were identified as moderately to severely frail by eFI, 59.6% by reFI, and 92.1% by CFS. Statistical tests confirmed significant differences (<i>p</i> < .05) in their assessments, indicating variability in measurement methods. <b>Discussion:</b> This study advances the understanding of frailty assessment within aged-care settings, highlighting the differences in the efficacy of these assessment tools. It underscores the challenges in frailty assessments and emphasizes the need for continuous refinement of assessment methods to address the diverse facets of frailty in aged care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93901,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biological research for nursing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"526-536\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11439236/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biological research for nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10998004241254459\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological research for nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10998004241254459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Not All Frailty Assessments Are Created Equal: Comparability of Electronic Health Data-Based Frailty Assessments in Assessing Older People in Residential Care.
Objectives: To evaluate the comparability of frailty assessment tools - the electronic frailty index (eFI), retrospective electronic frailty index (reFI), and clinical frailty scale (CFS) - in older residents of care facilities. Methods: Data from 813 individuals aged 65 or older, with frailty and co-morbidities, collected between 2022 and 2023, were analysed using various statistical methods. Results: The results showed significant differences in frailty classification among the tools: 78.3% were identified as moderately to severely frail by eFI, 59.6% by reFI, and 92.1% by CFS. Statistical tests confirmed significant differences (p < .05) in their assessments, indicating variability in measurement methods. Discussion: This study advances the understanding of frailty assessment within aged-care settings, highlighting the differences in the efficacy of these assessment tools. It underscores the challenges in frailty assessments and emphasizes the need for continuous refinement of assessment methods to address the diverse facets of frailty in aged care.